I hope someone could help me clarify something about dependent origination, is Kamma the driving force behind dependent origination ?

As far as I know, Lankavatara Sutra was held in high esteem by both Bodhidharma & his disciple Huiko to the extent both based their way of enlightenment on this Sutra. But what it is seen that 5th patriarch Hunjeng recommended his disciple Diamond Sutra. From there onwards, Diamond Sutra took the central position in Zen. What was the reason for this gradual replacement of Lankavatara with Diamond Sutra?

I noticed that in the case of *metta bhavana*, I seem to generate a lot of compassion while sitting, but as soon as I am in the real world I sometimes react impatiently or with irritation. The same goes for mindful breathing, where I act in daily life without much mindfulness despite effective sessions. **What is the best way to bring the benefits of meditation into every day experience?**

What exactly is the difference between Mindfulness and Concentration (I have seen different views on this topic so I would be happy if you could help me understand it)

I am struggling to understand the difference between two of the four pairs of the mundane/worldy concerns , namely between seeking praise and seeking honour/fame. They seem to me not to have much of a difference, consisting both of seeking the admiration and valuing of others. I'll be grateful for any explanation!

In the eastern perspective, Tipitaka is memorized and studied by Atthakatha-teachers from generation to generation and still going on nowadays, so it is weird to study Tipitaka without Atthakatha. But I look at the western Buddhist canon website and they look like "these words are from his disciple's mouth, but I don't want to hear his disciple's explanation because it's not actually his." For the example, https://suttacentral.net/ protects 84000.org to show suttacentral's page on its iframe directly after this function opened ere long. I requested this function to 84000.org webmaster because I need to use tipitaka, atthakatha, and tika in pali thai, pali roman, siamrattha thai translation, mahamakutta thai university translation, MCU translation, and **english translation**. (I don't know why 84000.org chose iframe instead of the real source from inside, but I think the webmaster may avoid the license problem). Actually, that protection is not the main idea, however it means suttacentral webmasters already knew the problem that suttacentral has not enough canons for the reference, no Atthakatha-pali and no Tika. It's ok for that protection, but it makes the questions that why don't suttacentral and the other western buddhist canon websites put the losing resources into their website, although they already knew there were demands? So, 1. What is the perspective of the western Buddhist canon website to protect the Buddhist people from Atthakatha study? 2. Why the western Buddhist canon website acts like "these words are from his disciple's mouth, but I don't want to hear his disciple's explanation because it's not actually his"? Another, why don't the western Buddhist canon websites make the function for easier reference such as highlight function ?

I have read the causes of anger, lust, etc. but I haven't yet encountered the cause of Muṣitasmṛtitā . I am sure, most of us have had issues with this ailment. What is the root cause of it?

Would the Buddha have considered engaging in anal sex as breaking the 1st and/or 5th precepts? I would like to know this as I am trying to better understand the 5 precepts.

It's strongly maintained by almost all Buddhists that there is no ultimate permanent knower. They maintain Nirvana is unconditioned phenomenon. My question is then, who knows there is an existence of such a phenomenon? One has to know or experience such a phenomenon to know about its existence. For instance, Gautama Buddha said - > There is, bhikkhus, that base (ayatana) where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, **it has no support**. Just this is the end of suffering. Ud 8.1 Now, how Gautama Buddha knew there is such base/ayantana with those qualities of negations? To claim so one has to either experience so or accept the authority of someone, right? or I am missing something? Moreover, What is 'it' in 'it has no support'? It seems some existing substance to me which has been experienced/known thus proving the existence of some known entity.

I noticed that when I meditate on breathing, which I've done about as long as the four immeasurables, I tend to nevertheless hear sounds such as a television or sounds outside my house. When I meditate on the four immeasurables, I don't hear the sounds in the environment. I'm not distracted at all unless I get quite tired. And is it possible that for me personally, metta provides more concentration? I'm especially curious of this **subjectivity** aspect in Buddhism. Given the focus on empirical evidence promoted by the Buddha, **how does one know / deal with aspects of the path that may be different because of one's own mental disposition?** More specifically, *how* would I ascertain if perhaps some aspects of the path are more difficult to me personally, and whether another way of proceeding would be more beneficial? How do I know what is essential, and what is peripheral?

Buddhist religious figures often wear orange robes. And I think that orange is, also, associated with Buddhist religious buildings -- and other religious "stuff" (although this may be simply a coincidence that I have given meaning it does not have) -- things like fabric, prayer flags, and religious art in temples, and painting of religious structures and artistic adornments in religious structures. When did the color orange become associated with Buddhism? Does this have any specific significance or meaning, and if so what is that meaning or significance? Also, sometimes a yellow or red color is used instead in the a similar context. The yellow color often looks like just a use/weather faded orange, or a trick of photography and lighting, or a different shade of orange, that may not be meaningful. But the red color (as depicted below), however, seems to be an intentional choice. Do either of these colors (yellow or red) these have different meanings than orange? And, when did these colors gain significance? Is it simply derived from robes -- https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/1642/254 -- or is there more to it than that? From here (Pixabay License - Free for commercial use - No attribution required). From here (Pixabay License - Free for commercial use - No attribution required). From here (Pixabay License - Free for commercial use - No attribution required). *Footnote Re Color Terminology* While this question, as edited, is not predominantly about robes as that has already been answered, the photographs above are primarily included to illustrate the colors that I am talking about as I am art terminology illiterate. I have used the primary color names orange, yellow and red because I have a thin vocabulary of colors and no art background (I haven't taken an art class since I was 13 years old, and I'm now more than three decades older than that). If that is not the proper name of the relevant colors feel free to correct me.

The Zen monk Hakuin said that 3 things are essential to practice > great faith, great doubt, and great resolve I can see how faith and resolve would be essential but I don't see why doubt would be? Also wouldn't faith and doubt contradict each other unless they occur separately at different times.

I'm wondering simply whether there is a difference between two thirty minute sits daily and an hour long sit daily? **Which is more advantageous?** Thank you

Can you explain something about joy? For example it's mentioned in [AN 11.1](https://suttacentral.net/an11.1/en/sujato) : > “But what’s the purpose and benefit of having no regrets?” “Avippaṭisāro pana, bhante, kimatthiyo kimānisaṃso”? > “Joy is the purpose and benefit of having no regrets.” “Avippaṭisāro kho, ānanda, pāmojjattho pāmojjānisaṃso”. I can imagine several specific question, please answer any or none of these (from scripture or experience, any tradition of Buddhism). I'm especially interested in the context of everyday lay life, rather than specifically/only during formal meditation. - Can you explain the joy/rapture/tranquillity/bliss/immersion sequence? What's the difference between these, what's the connection? Is some of this specifically meditative? I'm guessing that at least the start of the sequence, "skilful ethics" isn't only meditative. If this is too long to explain in an answer is there a text/reference you recommend instead? - Does some condition or thing cause joy, apart from a lack of remorse? Is it a matter of choice, at all? When dukkha arises would you say "that's dukkha, I'd better wait for it to cease", or would you say, "that's dukkha, I'd better 'choose joy' instead?" - Is it "primarily ethical", if that makes sense as a question, e.g. if ethics is doing the right thing then is joy (or choosing joy, or intending joy) also "the right thing" in that way? - Would I be right to assume that these maybe happen in stages, like one before the other -- with earlier ones having each next one as their eventual purpose? Is it something of a gradual training, does it make sense to focus on sometimes improving or cultivating one stage (e.g. joy)? How do you "cultivate" joy (is it only by cultivating skilful ethics and non-remorse or...)? - I'm a bit conscious of [this answer](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/7275/254) : > People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk. If there is food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success (mudita). > Anyhow, I don't claim to have a good solution for the problem-- how do we stay optimistic and positive or happy once we realize the muddle we are in, but at least the Mahayana version, provides a path towards how to find happiness-- by taking action to solve everyone's problems. Do you agree with that and is that all there is to say on that subject? Does it happen that Buddhism provides a new raft, or tells a person how to swim, but they still tend to be "depressed" e.g. unhappy and ineffective, as well as troubled or restless? - There's an illustration of "household joy" and "renunciation joy" at the end of [this question](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/25046/254) . Assuming I can imagine a bit what "household joy" might be, would it be worth explaining that illustration of "renunciation joy"? "Joy" seems to me to appear quite late in the "Ten Bulls" sequence -- relatively late compared to its being quite early in the Kimatthiyasutta -- i.e. it's the last, [Return to society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Bulls#Ku%C3%B2%C4%81n_Sh%C4%AByu%C7%8En 's_Ten_Bulls), which says, "I am ever blissful" etc. Is that significant? Or maybe it's earlier, like at the 5th of 6th stage.

As the title indicates, I don't know how the mind "picks" which sensation to focus on. Considering the huge amount of sense-data being received by the mind each moment, which condition directs consciousness to alight in a specific range of the whole set of sense-data? I've read that kamma influences where will the "seed" of consciousness grow. But what does this mean, exactly? In some sources, I've read that "past" namarupa gives to consciousness the content to be known in the present, which allows contact to arise. If that's the case, can we say that where we've placed our attention (as a factor of nama in namarupa) in the past determines where will consciousness will alight in each moment? EDIT: Some may argue that the intensity of an stimulus might be the main factor in determining where will condition alight. But what will happen when multiple sense-objects have a similar "strength", or when such "strength" is not objectively defined? For instance, what happens when someone is listening to some music? A singer attention might "fall" on the qualities of the singer's voice in the song; a bassist may auomatically pay attention to the bass and the technique behind the player; and a "casual" listener might just hear and pay attention to the overall song. In sum, I'm asking about the processes that might "filter" the whole range of sense-data input to be processed in the mind, and that determine which portion of that amount of information might be felt as a vedana. Thanks in advance for your time. Kind regards!

I asked a friend who is a meditator about my practice of compassion, and he suggested I do breathing meditation because it helps liberate the mind from overthinking, as well as relaxes the person. However, I'm slightly skeptical because *metta* typically is also considered a concentrative meditation. **Wouldn't compassion meditation also relax the mind because of this?** Thank you

Is it possible to attain stream-entry if one is only following "the 5 precepts"? Are there any suttas that seem to address this question?

How should I understand dukkha (in all its amplitude and semantic complexity), if I want to see it through the lens of Dependent Co-Arising? Where is it classified, apart from the final nidana? Is it a sankhara? Is always something felt and, therefore, a feeling? If dukkha is always something to be felt (as vedana), then does that mean that everytime the chain of conditionality gives rise to the final nidana, the chain "starts again" in vedana? Thanks in advance for your time. Kind regards!

When I read poems like this... ... I think of how long-lived such mountain monks tended to be on such a minimal diet (and of course whatever spiritual cultivation they gained) and focused they were on their own cultivation. **Are there any records of diets of these mountain monks?** I know many of them practiced Taoist teachings in addition to core Buddhist teachings, like the many monks that wrote the poems on Cold Mountain.

Just starting with meditation, I can't get the breathing right. As soon as I concentrate on breathing (as there is not much else to concentrate on), I **unvolunteraly assume concious control** over when to breath in and out. That leads to either to little or to much breathing and makes me feel dizzy. How ever, when I stop conciously breathing in and out, I don't breath at all - my breathing reflex wont kick in as long as I think about breathing. The result is an awkward cycle of holding breath, turning blue, conciously breathing like just surfaced from a freedive, holding breath again. Not thinking about breathing works only so long before I realise that I avoid to think about breathing... Is this common at all? How do you handle this?